Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nM+u0Dy-EcLUGgVsyjQLA6K-1Wpe+g9eUfoEMCGirYhnng@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, initialised at
>>> the start of each scan iff SnapshotNow is passed as the scan's
>>> snapshot. It's fairly brief but seems to do the trick.
>>
>> That's a neat trick.  However, if you start a new SnapshotNow scan while one is
>> ongoing, the primordial scan's snapshot will change mid-stream.
>
> Do we ever do that? (and if so, Why?!? or perhaps just Where?)

Just for the record, yes we do run multiple catalog scans in some
parts of the code.

So I can see how we might trigger 4 nested scans, using cache
replacement while scanning, so best assume more, with no guarantee of
them being neatly stacked for pop/push type access.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe